Anita J. Peterson v. Timothy G. Petersen

Kearney, Nebraska family law lawyers represented the wife and husband in a divorce action seeking dissolution of their marriage.





Timothy and Anita met on a "Farmers Only" online dating service and were married in December 2008 in Las Vegas, Nevada. Anita moved out of the parties' home on January 6, 2020, and filed a complaint for dissolution of marriage a few days later. She requested an equitable division of the parties' property and debts, alimony, attorney fees, and court costs. Timothy filed a responsive pleading also seeking to have their marriage dissolved.



Trial took place on May 3 and 4, 2023. Both parties testified, and numerous exhibits were received into evidence. Anita called a real estate appraiser to testify as an expert witness. Timothy called a valuation analyst, but after concluding the witness failed to meet the standards established for an expert witness, the district court sustained Anita's counsel's "objection on Rule 702." See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-702 (Reissue 2016) (if scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist trier of fact to understand evidence or to determine fact in issue, witness qualified as expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in form of opinion or otherwise).



* * *



Both parties held post-secondary degrees at the time of their marriage. After graduating from college, Timothy served in the Navy and then returned to Nebraska in the early 1990s to begin farming and ranching with his father. He farmed several parcels of owned and leased ground. Towards the end of his marriage to Anita, Timothy began to involve his sons in the farming operation. According to the parties, this was one of the main sources of contention between them. Anita objected to Timothy's older son being involved in the farming operation because "[t]his was our farming operation" and she and Timothy were "responsible for the expenses, the debt, the income." It was also her position that Timothy's older son, who subsequently moved into the family's farmhouse, should have been paying rent to Timothy and her because "it's an asset." After the parties separated, Anita was concerned that Timothy was not farming all the real estate previously farmed. She learned that Timothy had given 500 acres to his older son to farm, which Anita said, "[c]uts down the income quite a bit," but she could not give a "specific number." According to Timothy, he had "stated from the beginning" of their marriage that he wanted to "hand over" his farming operation to his "kids like [he] had farmed with [his] father," and Anita did not want that to happen. He claimed that she wanted to make his son "pay so much that he wouldn't be able to . . . make a living doing it," and Timothy wanted to help him get started.



Petersen v. Petersen, A-23-834 (Neb. App. Nov 19, 2024)

Affirmed as modified.